1. This court ordered notice before admission on 18-07-2006. Sri Polishetty Radhakrishna had taken notice on behalf of R.1. G.P. for Municipal Administration represents R.2. Notice was served on R.3 and Sri Suryakaran Reddy entered appearance on behalf of R.3 and filed counter affidavit.

2. Sri Aga Reddy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had contended that in view of the fact that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation had taken a view that re-examination for permission may be necessary and hence, the same to be forwarded in the light of the representation at an early date vide proceedings Lr. Roc. No.G1/2880/05-06, dated 03-07-2006 to the Director of Town and Country Planning, A.P. Hyderabad, the matter may have to be re-examined, until then the further constructions not to be proceeded with in the interest of justice. The learned counsel also would contend that this may have to be treated as a statutory appeal and the concerned Municipal Corporation to dispose of the matter in accordance with law instead of forwarding the same to the Director of Town and Country Planning, A.P. Hyderabad.

3. On the contrary, Sri Polisetty Radhakrishna, learned standing counsel would maintain that Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short the) would be applicable inasmuch as Karimnagar is a Municipal Corporation at present and hence the question of applying the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 would not arise.

4. Sri Suryakaran Reddy, the learned counsel representing respondent No.3 would maintain that the building permission was obtained and there are no contraventions or violations of any of the bye laws or building regulations and when that being so, especially in the absence of any misrepresentation, there is no question of reconsidering the same. Even otherwise at the best the first respondent again may reconsider in the light of the provisions of Section 450 of theaforesaid provided that the conditions are satisfied and in view of the same, it would not be just and proper to stop further construction since already the constructions were over, except some internal works.

5. Heard the counsel.

6. The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.1 in according permission to the respondent No.3 vide permission Roc. No.G1/881/06 dated 29-5-2006 to make construction of 3rd floor on his house bearing No.7-2-498 situated at Mankammathota, Karimnagar without following the due procedure i.e. by taking care to see that publication of notices, calling for objections etc., are not brought to the notice of public, as illegal and fraudulent and set-aside the same and further declare that the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not stopping the construction activity of 3rd floor by the respondent No.3 pending re-examination of whole matter as proposed by the respondent No.1 in his letter Roc.No.G1/2880/05-06 dated 3.7.2006 as illegal, arbitrary and dereliction of duty on their part and pass such other suitable orders.

7. The petitioner is the owner of house bearing No.7-2-497 situated at Mankammathota, Karimnagar. It is stated that the house is in existence since about 30 years. The petitioner and her husband reside in the said house and her mother in law also, who is sufficiently aged, resides with them in the same house. It is also stated that respondent No.3, who is a surgeon and medical practitioner, with good practice, resides and also runs his hospital by name Vasavi Nursing Home in his house bearing No.7-2-498 which is just adjacent to the petitioners house. Due to running of hospital by respondent No.3, the petitioner and the inmates of house of the petitioner are suffering a lot due to the pollution caused by such hospital and also due to traffic congestion which would obstruct the way to her house. It is also stated that the petitioner has been living in such a situation and inspite of the petitioners protest and representation, the authorities are not initiating any action. It is also stated that respondent No.3 originally constructed two floors wherein he is running the said hospital and also residing therein. Such construction was made in the year 1989. Even during such construction, the petitioner had objected to it. It is also stated that the construction is in violation of the sanctioned plan. The then municipality obstructed such construction. During the year 2004, respondent No.3 tried to construct third floor over the said house. This was objected to by the petitioner through application dated 29-4-2004. On such application, the construction of third floor was stopped and so much so that some portion constructed by respondent No.3 as third floor was also demolished by Municipality. While things stand thus, respondent No.3 in collusion with respondent No.1 had stealthily managed to get permission for the third floor described as commercial which is dated 29-5-2006. It is also stated that before granting of such permission the necessary formalities of publication of notice in proper manner etc., had not been complied with by respondent No.1. It is further stated even if records were made up to the effect of complying with such formalities, all this was done stealthily by taking care to see that it comes to notice that none and more particularly the petitioner. It is only after respondent No.3 started construction of third floor, the petitioner came to know about it. It is stated that the sanctioning of the third floor construction is the result of collusion between respondent No.3 and the respondent No.1. It is also stated that the petitioner came to know about it after observing the construction and she gave an application dated 28.6.2006 to respondent No.1 stating in detail the reasons as to why sanction of third floor should not be accorded and requesting him to cancel the permission dated 29-5-2006. Thereupon the respondent No.1 addressed a letter dated 3.7.2006 to respondent No.2 seeking clarification to permit reexamination of the permission accorded. Seeking such clarification at an early date in the same proceedings the respondent No.1 directed the respondent No.3 not to proceed with construction. It is also stated that she filed an application dated 7.7.2006 to respondent No.2 bringing to his notice that inspite of the order of respondent No.1 dated 3.7.2006, the respondent No.3 was proceeding with construction day and night and requested him to stop such construction and also justice to the petitioner. The petitioner also brought this fact to the notice of respondent No.1 by her application dated 9-7-2006 intimating him the hasty construction being undertaken by the respondent No.3. Inspite of it, the respondents 1 and 2 are not taking any action to stop such construction. In such circumstances, the petitioner is left with no other option except to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. The learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and also the standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation had not filed counter affidavits, but only advanced certain submissions in relation to Section 450 of the. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit wherein it was stated that respondent No.3 is a surgeon and medical practitioner and also running a hospital - Vasavi Nursing Home, bearing No.7-2-497 at Mankammathota, Karimnagar, which is adjacent to the house of the petitioner. All the other aspects relating to pollution and the other neighbours suffering were specifically denied. It is stated that it is a small town and patients use only two wheelers and their parking will have no hindrance to any of the neighbours. It is also stated that no other neighbour had objected. As a responsible Doctor it is his duty to keep the hospital premises and its surroundings pollution free, so as to enable his patients to get cured. If the hospital and its surroundings are not hygiene, no patients will come to his hospital, since more than 50 nursing homes are available in Karimnagar town. Adequate arrangements are made to take away the waste materials from the nursing home on day-to-day basis duly collecting the waste material from the nursing home and handing over the same to the Municipal Authorities. For the said service, the respondent paying fee to the Municipal Authorities regularly. It is stated that the third respondent constructed two floors after obtaining the sanction for the construction of nursing home vide sanction permit dated 17.9.1988. However, there are some minor deviations in respect of set backs, but the same were regularized under the Building Regulation Scheme as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.419 M.A. dated 30.07.1998 and accordingly proceedings were issued by the 1st respondent dated 30-12-2000. It is further stated that the third respondent made an application on 7.1.2003 for grant of permission to construct the third floor to the 1st respondent, but the said application was neither granted nor rejected. But however, neither the permission is granted nor rejected for a considerable time, the third respondent started construction of the third floor, but on the request of the Municipal Authorities, third respondent stopped the construction and removed the construction made by that time in the third floor. It is also stated that the third respondent made a request to the Municipal Authorities to consider his application for construction of third floor and pointed out the provisions under G.O.Ms.No.422, M.A., dated 31.7.1998, wherein the required procedure for obtaining the building permit is prescribed. According to the same, buildings upto Ground + 3 floors shall be permitted by the local body after technical approval of the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning. If it is more than ground + 3 floors, approval is to be obtained from the Director of Town and Country Planning. It is also stated that the first respondent, with an abundant caution, referred the matter to the Director of Town and Country Planning and after prolonged correspondence between the respondents 1 and 2 technical approval was sanctioned in Proceedings dated 12.5.2006. Based upon the same, now the building permission has been granted vide permit dated 29.5.2006 and the same is impugned in the writ petition. There is no illegality or impropriety in granting permission. Permission for construction was sanctioned in accordance with law. The ground of collusion is specifically denied. It is also stated that there is no requirement of publication of notice as averred in Para 6 or in any provisions under the or the Rules or the Building Bye-Laws dealing with sanction of building construction. It is also stated that there is no requirement of making a public notice or information to the petitioner with regard to the sanction of third floor construction in his property. It is also stated that the petitioner is not in good terms with the third respondent, in view of the fact that the third respondent and other neighbours are not permitting to occupy the common passage of 10 feet by putting a gate and making it an exclusive passage for him and in fact, the third respondent filed O.S.No.1820 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Karimagar for perpetual injunction, restraining the husband of the petitioner blocking the common passage by raising any construction and the said suit was decreed in his favour on 17-10-1996. For the aforesaid reason, the petitioner is making frivolous applications and causing hindrance to the construction of the third floor even though, it was legally sanctioned in accordance with law by the 1st respondent after obtaining approval of technical sanction from the 2nd respondent. In fact, the 1st respondent ought to have replied to the petitioner by rejecting her application dated 28.6.2006, since the same is bonafide and is only made to harass the 3rd respondent though the permission for construction of the third floor was legally sanctioned. 1st respondent is the competent authority to pass orders if any with regard to recall the permission already granted under the provisions of the, if any misrepresentation or fraud played by the third respondent. To his misfortune, the 1st respondent without taking action simply referred the matter to the 2nd respondent, seeking a clarification whether re-examination of permission will be made or not. In fact all the complaints made by the petitioner are beyond the scope of the petitioner. Therefore, the applications made by the petitioner being totally devoid of merit and in the facts and circumstances, the permission was already granted to the third respondent on 29.5.2006 and the same does not require to be reviewed at all and hence there is no necessity of stopping any construction in the third floor which is being made in accordance with the sanctioned permit dated 29.5.2006.

9. As can be seen from the factual matrix, there appears to be some controversy between the parties, the petitioner and the husband of the petitioner on the one hand and the third respondent on the other. There appears to be some prior litigation too. A suit was filed which ended in a decree. Be that as it may, the order made by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, addressing to the Director of Town & Country Planning, A.P. Hyderabad in Lr.Roc.No.G1/2880/05-06, dated 03-07-2006 reads as hereunder:

"Smt. B.Laxmi w/o. Adhi Reddy has filed an objection on 28-6-2006 and stating that due to Vasavi Nursing Home belongs to Dr.A.Jaya Ram s/o. Gundaiah located in the premises Door No.7-2-498 situated at Mankammathota locality always crowded by patients and visiting doctors and patients suffering from various diseases are admitted in the Nursing Home, the entire Residential area is engulfed by foul smell due to the collection Garbage beside the Nursing Home there is no common passage between and the two houses i.e.7-2-497 and 7-2-498 thus there were about 5 theft cases and request to cancel the third floor construction made by Dr.A.Jaya Ram s/o.Gundaiah. In this connection, it is to submit that the building permission for 3rd floor has been accorded vide B.P.No.52/06/W-C No.8616/06, Lr.No.G1/2880/05 dated 8-3-2006 of Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar the same has permitted B.A.No.102/G1/CC No.881/06, dated 29-05-2006. Hence, a clarification re-examination for the permission may kindly be forwarded on the light of representation, at an early date.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/

Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation,

Karimnagar"

10. This proceeding is strongly relied upon by the writ petitioner and submission made at length is that despite the fact that the first respondent-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation thought it fit that this requires re-examination without stopping further construction, simply forwarding the representation to the second respondent, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be sustained. The further submission made is that till some decision is taken in this regard, it would not be just and proper to permit the third respondent to proceed with further construction. In substance, this appears to be the stand. As can be seen from the facts, in accordance with sanctioned plan issued, the third respondent proceeded with the construction and almost construction was completed, except certain internal work that appears to be the stage. It is needless to say that inasmuch as the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 are not applicable, the question of treating the same as a statutory appeal and deciding the matter in accordance with the provisions of the said Act may not arise. Both the counsel Sri Polyshetty Radhakrishna representing R.1 and also Sri Suryakaran Reddy representing R.3 had pointed out to Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 which is applicable to the present case on hand. Section 450 of thedeals with power of commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant and the said provision reads as hereunder.

"Section 450:- Power of Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant:- If at any time after permission to proceed with any building or work has been given, the Commissioner is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Section 428 or 433 in the further information if any, furnished, he may cancel such permission and any work done there under shall be deemed to have been done without his permission."

11. A duty cast upon the applicant to furnish the particulars correctly in the context of Section 450 of the aforesaid Act. It had been dealt with in Shri Manohar Rao Kulkarni Vs. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, (Town Planning Section) 1971 (1) Andhra Weekly reporter 313. It is needless to say that Section 450 of thedeals with the power of the Commissioner. It is also needless to say that whether power to be exercised as specified under Section 450 of theor not in a particular set of facts, it is a matter to be examined by the concerned Commissioner- the first respondent herein. In the light of the last portion of the order in Lr.Roc.No.G1/2880/05-06 dated 3-7-2006 it appears that the first respondent already expressed some opinion relating to reexamination. In what context the first respondent expressed the said opinion and forwarded the representation, it is not known. It is stated that inasmuch as the second respondent is the competent authority to grant permission, the said observation was made. Be that as it may, in the light of the facts and circumstances without expressing any further opinion, in the light of the order made by the first respondent dated 3-7-2006 it is needless to say that both the respondents 1 and 2 to take into consideration the facts and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law after putting both the petitioner and the third respondent on notice within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that any further construction would be subject to further orders which may be passed by respondents 1 and 2.

12. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.